School as a Socialization Agent in the U.S.
School is mandated in the U.S. until age 16 and most students attend until 18. And while enrolled in school, students are there for approximately 8 hours per day for 12 years of their lives. And although it took the quarantine to realize it, schools are, in fact, very influential and in many ways more than simply learning.
Brainstorm the functions that schools serve both society and students. One way to help you think about this is by thinking about the Covid quarantine and all the ways that you or your families were affected by not having normal school. List as many functions of school as you can. Schools are important in many ways to society. Some of their functions are to teach lessons; the most obvious being to teach reading, writing, math, history and science. These manifest lessons are explicit ways that schools influence students. However, schools also influence students in more subtle, implicit ways, or latent lessons.
What Latent Lessons Schools Teach
Liberal Values?
Schools have been criticized for latently teaching students progressive values since at least 1974. Three sociologists wanted to research if teachers indoctrinated their students with "liberal" values and what values those were. Brint, Contreras and Matthews (2001) observed elementary school teachers and they coded the messages that teachers relayed to students. They observed over 1000 interactions between teachers and students.
1. Individually Take a guess - brainstorm what you think the messages were that teachers relayed to students most frequently?
Schools have been criticized for latently teaching students progressive values since at least 1974. Three sociologists wanted to research if teachers indoctrinated their students with "liberal" values and what values those were. Brint, Contreras and Matthews (2001) observed elementary school teachers and they coded the messages that teachers relayed to students. They observed over 1000 interactions between teachers and students.
1. Individually Take a guess - brainstorm what you think the messages were that teachers relayed to students most frequently?
DO NOT SCROLL FORWARD UNTIL AFTER ANSWERING #2
Sociologists Brint, Contreras and Matthews observed elementary school teachers and they coded the messages that teachers relayed to students. They observed over 1000 interactions between teachers and students.
They found that the most common references that teachers reinforced to students were:
2. How many of these did you guess in #2? List the messages that you guessed in #2 that were the same as those above.
They found that the most common references that teachers reinforced to students were:
- Be orderly.
- Work hard.
- Show respect and consideration.
- Participate.
- Be in charge of yourself.
- Cooperate.
- Justice/fairness.
- Responsibility.
- Self-control.
3. Now, using the list above, decide what % each of those references were out of 100%. (The total should add up to 100.)
[ANSWER #3 and 4 BEFORE MOVING FORWARD]
Here are the actual totals:
4. Choose one of the following research articles (A-D). Was this true in your experience or at your school?
A. College and Latent Political Attitudes
Campbell and Horowitz (2016) studied whether liberal values were a product of higher education. They focused on civil liberties, gender egalitarianism and political party affiliation. They found that college seems to affect the belief in civil liberties and gender egalitarianism but that political party affiliation was more likely influenced by family background.
B. This 2017 research by Elizabeth Lawrence examines the connection between college education and healthier lifestyle behaviors. Here is her abstract:
Andrew Guest and Barbara Schneider from University of Chicago published in Sociology of Education (2003) about the importance of extracurriculars and how they shape students' identities differently depending on the type of school the students attend. Here is a summary from the discussion section:
Are these findings true for your high school experience? What specific ways?
D. School Culture Affects How Students Think About Themselves as Students and How to Be Successful
Lisa Nunn researched how school cultures shape the students that attend each school. Her findings are published in her book, Defining Student Success. Read a preview from Google books here, and from Rutgers University Press, also available through JSTOR here. And there is a detailed review of Nunn's work from LUC's Dr. Judson Everitt, available on JSTOR here or from U of Chicago Press here.
Dr. Everitt's review shows that Nunn finds three different types of schools (Alternative, Comprehensive and Elite) that affect students' views of themselves as learners:
“Alternative High,” “Comprehensive High,” and “Elite Charter” each have distinct organizational structures and practices that cultivate unique school- level cultural meanings about success.
Alternative High operates on a non-traditional school model intended to improve the prospects of low-income students by both helping them fulfill college entrance requirements and pre- paring them for the working world in their areas of interest. The local cultural wisdom at Alternative High promotes what Nunn calls a “success- through-effort” perspective among students, in which students define success as achievable entirely through effort with little dependence on intelligence.
Comprehensive High is a more traditional high school that serves a large and ethnoracially diverse student body, and promotes a perspective that combines elements of “success-through-effort” with what Nunn calls “success-through- intelligence.” Effort is necessary but not sufficient for success, according to this school’s culture; one must also possess an innate intelligence that enables understanding of academic material.
Elite Charter is a high-performing, college-preparatory charter school serving a predominantly affluent student body where students are focused almost exclusively on academic performance that will earn them entrance to elite colleges. Here, intelligence is viewed as the foundation of success, and the “success-through-effort” element is modified into the idea of “initiative,” through which outstanding students can demonstrate their “passion” for learning.
Was your high school one of these three types? Do you think that your high school affected how the students thought of themselves as students (aka their sense of self)?
Peers as an Agent of Socialization
Friends and peer groups are very influential for Americans. There is evidence that the most important factor in statistically predicting whether a teen will take up a particular deviant behavior (such as smoking or crime) is the presence or absence of peers who also engage in that behavior. Here are some important conclusions that sociologists have claimed about the influence of friends/peers:
- Peer groups tend to be influenced by homophily, or the tendency for people to be around others who are similar to themselves.
- Peer influence starts especially because of school and cohort groups, and becomes significant by adolescence, sometimes more intense and more influential than family.
- Adolescents spend more time with each other in age-related cohorts than with parents or anyone else. This leads to an adolescent subculture.
Mark Granovetter's Strength of Weak Ties
Research from Mark Granovetter (1973) has become one of the most cited sociology research articles ever. It is called The Strength of Weak Ties. His research found that an individual's strong ties are usually overlapping and thus redundant, so they do not provide connections as much as weak ties. Weak ties extend an individual's network opening more connections. Stanford U explains the importance of Granovetter's research here (2023). The theory was also retested and found to still be valid as published in Science 2022.
Friend Sources Throughout the Lifecourse of Males and Females
Where do Americans find their friends at different ages? How are males and females friend sources different? Sociologist Reuben Thomas provides some evidence on his homepage. Thomas explains his research:
The survey began with the instruction: “Think about the 2 friends you most often socialize with face-to-face. Do not include family members or boyfriends/girlfriends.” I chose the phrase “most often socialize with” to elicit the friendships most involved in the respondents’ non-work, recreational time. This did not ask the respondents’ to choose based on strength of bond or affection, but purely on frequency of shared social activities, in the present tense. Fischer’s (1982) comparison of ego network name generators found that joint social activities was the best predictor that the alter would be labeled a ‘friend,’ better than discussing personal matters, or any of the other several name generators he used. The specification “face-to-face” discouraged respondents from listing long-distance confidants or other people who were outside of their regular social activities. Though non-local ties can be very strong, and important in many ways, they cannot provide many types of support that local ties can (e.g. child-care), cannot participate in most physical social events (dinners, parties, etc.) and are thus much less likely to have ties to other members of the respondents’ local social networks (Martin and Yeung 2006), or introduce new alters. The focus on local friendship ties in this study is an effort to measure the characteristics of the cores of the non-kin informal social networks that respondents are embedded within
The survey asked respondents how they met each friend, and provided a text box to type in their answers in their own words. The majority of answers were very simple and to the point, such as “at church” or “work.” Some answers were too ambiguous or minimal to provide any clear information, such as “since childhood” or “at home,” which I coded as missing. I defined voluntary organizations loosely to include hobbies, sports and similar activities as well as more formal organizations. I use the label “college” to include all post-secondary education, including 15 when respondents used the word “school” to describe an educational setting in adulthood. I coded as “neighbor” friends who were introduced by a neighbor, but the great majority of this category are friends who are/were the respondents’ neighbors.
Examine his findings in this graphic:
5. Can you identify a difference between where males and females find their friends? At what age is this difference? Is this true for you - where are most of your own friends from?
Where do Americans find their friends at different ages? How are males and females friend sources different? Sociologist Reuben Thomas provides some evidence on his homepage. Thomas explains his research:
The survey began with the instruction: “Think about the 2 friends you most often socialize with face-to-face. Do not include family members or boyfriends/girlfriends.” I chose the phrase “most often socialize with” to elicit the friendships most involved in the respondents’ non-work, recreational time. This did not ask the respondents’ to choose based on strength of bond or affection, but purely on frequency of shared social activities, in the present tense. Fischer’s (1982) comparison of ego network name generators found that joint social activities was the best predictor that the alter would be labeled a ‘friend,’ better than discussing personal matters, or any of the other several name generators he used. The specification “face-to-face” discouraged respondents from listing long-distance confidants or other people who were outside of their regular social activities. Though non-local ties can be very strong, and important in many ways, they cannot provide many types of support that local ties can (e.g. child-care), cannot participate in most physical social events (dinners, parties, etc.) and are thus much less likely to have ties to other members of the respondents’ local social networks (Martin and Yeung 2006), or introduce new alters. The focus on local friendship ties in this study is an effort to measure the characteristics of the cores of the non-kin informal social networks that respondents are embedded within
The survey asked respondents how they met each friend, and provided a text box to type in their answers in their own words. The majority of answers were very simple and to the point, such as “at church” or “work.” Some answers were too ambiguous or minimal to provide any clear information, such as “since childhood” or “at home,” which I coded as missing. I defined voluntary organizations loosely to include hobbies, sports and similar activities as well as more formal organizations. I use the label “college” to include all post-secondary education, including 15 when respondents used the word “school” to describe an educational setting in adulthood. I coded as “neighbor” friends who were introduced by a neighbor, but the great majority of this category are friends who are/were the respondents’ neighbors.
Examine his findings in this graphic:
5. Can you identify a difference between where males and females find their friends? At what age is this difference? Is this true for you - where are most of your own friends from?
Friends with Academic Benefits: Friend Network Structure and Influence on College Success
First, the article in Contexts called "Friends with Academic Benefits by Janice McCabe from Dartmouth Sociology Department, analyzes three different structures of friend groups for college students. I will summarize the article's findings below, but the full article is linked above. Try to read my summary below and answer question 1, but if you need more context or if you are interested in the rest of the article, see the link above.
McCabe analyzes the structure of peer networks, the type of friends in the network and differences between race and class. She finds 3 different structures of friend networks. She calls these three structures "tight-knitters, compartmentalizers, and samplers....tight-knitters’ networks resemble a ball of yarn, compartmentalizers’ a bow-tie, and samplers’ a daisy."
Tightknitters
Tight-knitters have one densely woven friendship group in which nearly all their friends are friends with one another.... Most tight-knitters were students of color who found the social support of their network helpful in navigating a predominantly White campus. Some tight-knitters had friendship networks that helped them academically in multiple ways. Tight-knit networks, however, did not always pull students up academically. They pulled some tight-knitters down, helping to reproduce race- and class-based inequalities. About half of the 22 tight-knitters in my sample were ... surrounded by friends who pulled them away from academics. Nearly all students discussed friends distracting them from academics, but for lower-achieving tight-knitters who did not graduate from MU or who graduated but with low GPAs and in more than four years, friends were a constant distraction. All behaviors—negative and positive—were quite contagious within tight-knit networks. Consequently, all tight-knitters who described their friends as providing academic support and motivation graduated; only half of the tight-knitters who felt they lacked this support graduated.
Compartmentalizers Compartmentalizers’ friends form two to four clusters, where friends know each other within clusters but rarely across them. Compartmentalized networks look like a bow-tie, with distinct clusters of friends. Students’ friends within each of the 2-4 clusters were connected to each other, but friends were not connected across clusters. Like Betsy, most compartmentalizers were White and middle-class. They typically had one socially oriented cluster and one academically oriented cluster. She felt her two clusters of friends enabled her to balance schoolwork and friendly fun, and she graduated in four years. Students with more than two clusters of friends felt pressure—on their time and identity—in keeping up with multiple friendship groups. The clusters provided a sense of belonging, but maintaining ties can be demanding, and these demands escalated with each additional cluster. All compartmentalizers had separate academic and social clusters of friends. In general, compartmentalizers came from more advantaged backgrounds, experienced greater ease on campus, and succeeded in college with less support from friends as compared to those with other network types. Friendships among students from more advantaged backgrounds helped to reproduce their advantages.
Samplers
Samplers make a friend or two from a variety of places, but the friends remain unconnected to each other. Students of color frequently described experiencing race-based isolation on campus regardless of their network type; samplers, however, remained isolated. They rarely discussed isolating experiences with friends, and samplers were ambivalent at best about whether their friends provided social support or whether they needed social support. Samplers are academically successful in spite of their friends. Their friends provide little academic help or engagement, but they don’t pull the samplers down academically either. Negative behaviors that were contagious within tight-knitters’ networks did not spread within samplers’ networks due to lack of ties among friends. In other words, their network structure shielded samplers from friends’ negative influences. While samplers demonstrate that friends are not necessary for academic success, one can’t help but wonder if they might be even more successful if they allowed or encouraged their friends to become friends with academic benefits.
6. Do you have friends with academic benefits or do your friends influence you to be less successful academically? Can you identify your own social network structure based on the models in the article?
First, the article in Contexts called "Friends with Academic Benefits by Janice McCabe from Dartmouth Sociology Department, analyzes three different structures of friend groups for college students. I will summarize the article's findings below, but the full article is linked above. Try to read my summary below and answer question 1, but if you need more context or if you are interested in the rest of the article, see the link above.
McCabe analyzes the structure of peer networks, the type of friends in the network and differences between race and class. She finds 3 different structures of friend networks. She calls these three structures "tight-knitters, compartmentalizers, and samplers....tight-knitters’ networks resemble a ball of yarn, compartmentalizers’ a bow-tie, and samplers’ a daisy."
Tightknitters
Tight-knitters have one densely woven friendship group in which nearly all their friends are friends with one another.... Most tight-knitters were students of color who found the social support of their network helpful in navigating a predominantly White campus. Some tight-knitters had friendship networks that helped them academically in multiple ways. Tight-knit networks, however, did not always pull students up academically. They pulled some tight-knitters down, helping to reproduce race- and class-based inequalities. About half of the 22 tight-knitters in my sample were ... surrounded by friends who pulled them away from academics. Nearly all students discussed friends distracting them from academics, but for lower-achieving tight-knitters who did not graduate from MU or who graduated but with low GPAs and in more than four years, friends were a constant distraction. All behaviors—negative and positive—were quite contagious within tight-knit networks. Consequently, all tight-knitters who described their friends as providing academic support and motivation graduated; only half of the tight-knitters who felt they lacked this support graduated.
Compartmentalizers
Compartmentalizers’ friends form two to four clusters, where friends know each other within clusters but rarely across them. Compartmentalized networks look like a bow-tie, with distinct clusters of friends. Students’ friends within each of the 2-4 clusters were connected to each other, but friends were not connected across clusters. Like Betsy, most compartmentalizers were White and middle-class. They typically had one socially oriented cluster and one academically oriented cluster. She felt her two clusters of friends enabled her to balance schoolwork and friendly fun, and she graduated in four years. Students with more than two clusters of friends felt pressure—on their time and identity—in keeping up with multiple friendship groups. The clusters provided a sense of belonging, but maintaining ties can be demanding, and these demands escalated with each additional cluster. All compartmentalizers had separate academic and social clusters of friends. In general, compartmentalizers came from more advantaged backgrounds, experienced greater ease on campus, and succeeded in college with less support from friends as compared to those with other network types. Friendships among students from more advantaged backgrounds helped to reproduce their advantages.
Samplers
Samplers make a friend or two from a variety of places, but the friends remain unconnected to each other. Students of color frequently described experiencing race-based isolation on campus regardless of their network type; samplers, however, remained isolated. They rarely discussed isolating experiences with friends, and samplers were ambivalent at best about whether their friends provided social support or whether they needed social support. Samplers are academically successful in spite of their friends. Their friends provide little academic help or engagement, but they don’t pull the samplers down academically either. Negative behaviors that were contagious within tight-knitters’ networks did not spread within samplers’ networks due to lack of ties among friends. In other words, their network structure shielded samplers from friends’ negative influences. While samplers demonstrate that friends are not necessary for academic success, one can’t help but wonder if they might be even more successful if they allowed or encouraged their friends to become friends with academic benefits.
6. Do you have friends with academic benefits or do your friends influence you to be less successful academically? Can you identify your own social network structure based on the models in the article?
7. Analyze one of the research studies below for the importance of peers as agents of socialization. Try to apply the research to your own friends/peers network. Is it similar for you or different and in what ways?
A. Friend Groups and Influence on Choice of Study
This 2019 article from the journal Sociology of Education shows that your friends will influence the likelihood of you being in STEM classes or not. From the article,
We find strong evidence that students adjust their preferences to those of their friends (friend influence). Moreover, girls tend to retain their STEM preferences when other girls in their classroom also like STEM (peer exposure). We conclude that these mechanisms amplify preexisting preferences and thereby contribute to the observed dramatic widening of the STEM gender gap....Homophily, the tendency for friends to be similar in multiple regards (e.g., in their gender or sex category, age, attitudes, and cultural taste) is widely documented (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). This can be due to friend selection, that is, the tendency to befriend others who are similar, but, in the case of changeable characteristics, it can also be due to social influence.... First, both boys and girls are influenced to like what their friends like. Because students mostly have same-sex friends, gender-specific tendencies of influence will emerge. Boys, who have higher probabilities to like STEM to begin with (in our observed time period), are likely to be further influenced toward STEM because their friends are likely to be boys, who are, again, more likely to have pre-existing STEM preferences. Girls, having lower probabilities to like STEM already, are likely further influenced by other girls, who are also less likely to prefer STEM. However, these are just general tendencies. Depending on the particular friends one might have, individual implications can also be different (e.g., cases where girls are friends with more boys than with girls, or with girls who like STEM). Second, regarding STEM subjects, other girls’ preferences in the classroom matter. Having other female students in a class who prefer STEM can protect girls from being discouraged from STEM subjects. This implies that along with friends’ subject preferences, the negotiation of gender politics in the classroom is also important for girls’ STEM preferences. Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.
Are you in STEM? Are your friends? Is this article's conclusion true for you?
We find strong evidence that students adjust their preferences to those of their friends (friend influence). Moreover, girls tend to retain their STEM preferences when other girls in their classroom also like STEM (peer exposure). We conclude that these mechanisms amplify preexisting preferences and thereby contribute to the observed dramatic widening of the STEM gender gap....Homophily, the tendency for friends to be similar in multiple regards (e.g., in their gender or sex category, age, attitudes, and cultural taste) is widely documented (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). This can be due to friend selection, that is, the tendency to befriend others who are similar, but, in the case of changeable characteristics, it can also be due to social influence....
First, both boys and girls are influenced to like what their friends like. Because students mostly have same-sex friends, gender-specific tendencies of influence will emerge. Boys, who have higher probabilities to like STEM to begin with (in our observed time period), are likely to be further influenced toward STEM because their friends are likely to be boys, who are, again, more likely to have pre-existing STEM preferences. Girls, having lower probabilities to like STEM already, are likely further influenced by other girls, who are also less likely to prefer STEM. However, these are just general tendencies. Depending on the particular friends one might have, individual implications can also be different (e.g., cases where girls are friends with more boys than with girls, or with girls who like STEM).
Second, regarding STEM subjects, other girls’ preferences in the classroom matter. Having other female students in a class who prefer STEM can protect girls from being discouraged from STEM subjects. This implies that along with friends’ subject preferences, the negotiation of gender politics in the classroom is also important for girls’ STEM preferences. Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.
B. College Roommates and Risky Behavior
What did the researchers conclude about having college roommates that engage in risky behavior?
C. Peer Groups from High School to College
How are students influenced by attending a college where more of their high school classmates attend?
D. Strength of Peer Influence on Preadolescents
Patricia and Peter Adler are very well-published in the area of adolescent peer socialization. Their book called Peer Power is an extensive exploration into the world of adolescents and their effect on each other. From Google books,
Based on eight years of intensive insider participant observation in their own children's community, Peter and Patti Adler discuss the vital components of the lives of preadolescents, popularity, friendships, cliques, social status, social isolation, loyalty, bullying, boy-girl relationships, and afterschool activities. They describe how friendships shift and change, how people are drawn into groups and excluded from them, how clique leaders maintain their power and popularity, and how individuals' social experiences and feelings about themselves differ from the top of the pecking order to the bottom. In so doing, the Adlers focus their attention on the peer culture of the children themselves and the way this culture extracts and modifies elements from adult culture. Children's peer culture, as it is nourished in those spaces where grown-ups cannot penetrate, stands between individual children and the larger adult society. As such, it is a mediator and shaper, influencing the way children collectively interpret their surroundings and deal with the common problems they face.
No comments:
Post a Comment